On the 10th day of August, 1900, the Hon. Antonio Majorreis del Rosario, judge of the court of first instance of the district of Binondo, in the city of Manila, was suspended from the further performance of the duties of his office by order of the military governor, Maj. Gen. Arthur MacArthur, for alleged malfeasance in office. In October, 1900, Judge Majorreis made a written application to the commission, wherein he prayed that the cause of his suspension might be inquired into by it and that he might be reinstated in office or be permanently removed, as justice might require. In response to that application, the commission set apart the 17th day of December for the purpose of hearing the charges against Judge Majorreis and his defense, and upon that day and subsequent days the facts which led to his suspension from office were fully heard on due notice to all parties. On the 5th day of January, 1901, the commission announced its decision, that the suspension ordered by the military governor on the 10th day of August, 1900, ought to be made permanent and that the judge should be removed from his office and so ordered. It was found as a fact that in the executive action of Regidor v. Hartman, Judge Majorreis had rendered a final judgment for $30,000 in favor of the plaintiff and had issued execution against the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank when that bank was not a party to the action, had never been cited to appear and protect its rights and the judge was authentically informed that the bank denied having in its possession any funds or property belonging to Hartman subject to execution, and when its efforts to be heard in vindication of its rights were entirely disregarded and defeated by the judge.

The fundamental principle, not only of the universal sense of justice and right, but also of every civilized system of jurisprudence, that no one should be condemned unheard, and that judgment should not be rendered and execution should not issue in any case against anyone until he had had his day in court, had been completely violated by Judge Majorreis, and that violation had occurred in an action where great pecuniary interest was at stake and where redress was impossible if the execution ordered by him had been enforced. So complete a violation of fundamental principles as to shock the moral sense indicated such a shortage of moral discrimination and such a disregard of the plain difference between justice and injustice that it was considered that his continuance in office would be highly detrimental to the good name of the courts and to the due administration of justice. The decision in this case is found in the "Public laws and resolutions passed by the United States Philippine Commission" during the quarter ending February 28, 1901, on page 1 of the public resolutions therein printed.

On the same date, the decision of the commission in the San Jose College case was rendered. The history of that case is stated in

another portion of this report, and the decision is embraced in the volume last above referred to.

On the 22d day of January, 1901, act No. 75 was passed, providing an easy remedy against judgments obtained by fraud, accident or mistake, which enables the supreme court on petition, upon just terms, to grant relief against judgments that have been obtained by fraud, accident or mistake, and to grant appeal where the right to appeal had been lost by reason of either of the grounds above stated. This act is in accordance with the procedure that obtains in many of the States of the United States and was rendered necessary as emergency legislation to afford redress against iniquitous judgments obtained by fraud which were about to be enforced and against which the existing Spanish law furnished no adequate relief.

On January 24, 1901, act No. 76, conferring admiralty jurisdiction upon provost courts, was enacted. There were no courts existing in the islands at that time which clearly had jurisdiction over maritime contracts, torts, injuries or offenses, and the existing civil courts were so dilatory in their dispatch of business that it was deemed essential to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon provost courts, where speedy justice could be rendered in relation to admiralty controversies, criminal and civil, so that vessels might not unduly be delayed in the waters of these islands, awaiting the determination of a maritime controversy. The right of review of the proceedings of the provost courts, acting in admiralty was by the act conferred upon the military governor in cases where the proceedings were had in the court located in Manila, and upon the commanding general of the department in which the court was located if the proceedings were had in a court. located at another port in the Philippine Islands. The commanding general or military governor, as the case might be, was thus given substantially the same power over admiralty proceedings conducted in the provost courts that he had over other proceedings conducted by those courts.

Under the Spanish procedure, a system of challenging of judges, magistrates and justices of the peace existed, which was found to result in an absolute paralysis of all the machinery of justice in certain cases. Aside from the ordinary grounds of disqualification of judges which exist in the United States, the Spanish law allowed a peremptory challenge of the competency of judicial officers on the ground of undue friendship or hostility to either party or his counsel. Upon these or other grounds, it was practicable for the party to challenge the competency of a judge or magistrate at nearly every stage of the proceedings, when the party wished to secure delay or imagined that the judge or magistrate was liable to decide against him. Upon the filing of the challenge as to the competency of the judge or magistrate, the question of competency was referred to another judge or magistrate to

determine, and the original proceedings awaited the termination of this side issue. But the competency of the judge or magistrate sitting to determine the competency of the first judge or magistrate, could be challenged upon the same ground, and the fitness of the second judge or magistrate to sit in the trial of the question of the competency of the first one was referred to a third, and so on, ad infinitum. Criminal prosecutions were pending in the city of Manila, in which every available judge and justice had been challenged, so that the alleged criminal was able to hold the public entirely at bay and prevent all proceedings to secure his conviction. To meet this difficulty, act No. 81 was enacted on January 28, 1901, repealing all those portions of the Spanish civil and criminal codes of procedure authorizing the challenge of judges, magistrates, justices of the peace, assessors and auxiliaries to tribunals, and providing that the ordinary disqualifications of pecuniary interest, relationship to either party within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or having been counsel in an action, should exist, and that the judge or magistrate should determine upon the question of his own competency immediately, as is done in the United States, and proceed with the action or retire from it, according to his determination upon that question, and that no appeal or stay of action should be allowed from or by reason of his decision in favor of his own competency until after the final judgment in his court. This act furnished an immediate relief in many cases and allowed the clogged machinery once more to get in motion.

REORGANIZATION OF COURTS.

On the 11th day of June, 1901, the commission enacted act No. 136, providing for the organization of courts in the Philippine Islands, which act took effect on the 16th day of June. The preparation of this act, as well as of the code of civil procedure hereinafter referred to, was intrusted to Commissioner Ide soon after the arrival of the commission in the islands, and the first draft of the act was prepared by him during the year succeeding his assignment for that purpose. After the completion of the first draft of the two acts, they were revised by President Taft and Commissioner Wright, the other two members of the commission having a legal education. When the work of revision by the commissioners had been concluded, the proposed acts were printed in the Spanish and English languages and distributed to the bar and all others of the public who were interested, and public discussion thereof was invited. The public sessions of the commission for the discussion of these important enactments extended over a period of nearly two months. It thus became practicable for the commission to receive most important aid and information in the perfection of the laws and their adaptation to local conditions.

Act No. 136, providing for the organization of courts, establishes a

complete system of civil tribunals for the administration of justice in every portion of the Philippine Archipelago. It requires that a person to be eligible to the office of chief justice of the supreme court, of judge of the supreme court, or of a court of first instance, must1. Be more than 30 years of age.

2. Be a citizen of the United States, or a native of the Philippine Islands, or have acquired by virtue of the treaty of Paris the political rights of a native of these islands.

3. He must have practiced law, or have been a judge of a court of record in the United States or in the Philippine Islands or in Spain, or, previous to the date of the ratification of the treaty of Paris, in any Spanish territory for a period of five years, or must for a like period have filled any office which requires a legal degree as an indispensable qualification in the Philippine Islands, or, previous to the date of the ratification of the treaty of Paris, in any Spanish territory. The act requires that judges and justices of the several courts shall, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation, to wit:

I, -, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as -, according to the best of my ability and understanding, agreeably to the laws of the Philippine Islands. And that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the United States of America in these islands, and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that I impose upon myself this obligation voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

The act establishes a supreme court, to consist of a chief justice and 6 associate judges, any 5 of whom can convene and shall form a quorum; but requires the concurrence of at least 4 members to pronounce a judgment. The annual salary of the chief justice is fixed at $7,500 and the associate judges at $7,000. The judges, by the terms of the law, are to be appointed by the commission and shall hold office during its pleasure; but by subsequent orders of the Secretary of War and legislation by the commission in accordance therewith, the power of appointing and removing judges and other civil officers has become vested in the civil governor, subject to the advice and approval of the commission.

The court is required to hold regular terms for the hearing of causes at Manila, commencing on the second Monday of January and July; at Iloilo on the first Monday of November, and at Cebu on the first Monday of December of each year. Special sessions at either of the above-named places, at such other times as may be prescribed by the judges, may be held. The act gives to the supreme court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas

corpus and quo warranto, and the power to issue all other auxiliary writs and processes necessary to the complete exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction. It gives to that court appellate jurisdiction over all actions and special proceedings brought to it from courts of first instance and from other tribunals from whose judgment the law has specially provided an appeal to the supreme court. It provides for a clerk, with deputies, and makes the governor of a province in which the court is held its officer for the enforcement of good order and the service of its process; but in the city of Manila, the sheriff of that city is made the officer of the court. It authorizes the judges of the supreme court to make all necessary rules for orderly procedure in that court and in the courts of first instance and in the courts of justices of the peace, and for the admission of lawyers for the practice of law before such courts, and to assign any judge of that court to hear any particular cause pending in any court of first instance or to hold a term of any court of first instance for reasons satisfactory to the judges.

It provides for a reporter of decisions of the supreme court, at a salary of $1,000 per year, who shall prepare and publish volumes of the reports of the decisions of the supreme court, to be styled "Philippine Reports," in substantially the manner in which volumes of the Reports of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are reported and published.

It abolishes the previously existing supreme court and the Spanish tribunal called "Contencioso administrativo," and transfers to the new supreme court all the proceedings pending in those tribunals.

It provides for an attorney-general, at a salary of $5,500 per annum; a solicitor-general, at a salary of $4,500 per annum, and an assistant attorney-general, at a salary of $3,000 per annum, who are to perform substantially the same duties as similar officer's in the United States.

It provides for one court of first instance for each province, with salaries ranging from $3,000 to $5,500, in accordance with the population and the importance of the district to which the judge is assigned and the amount of litigation liable to be pending therein. By an act hereinafter referred to, the whole archipelago was divided into 15 judicial districts, of which the city of Manila constitutes one, and for which two judges of the court of first instance are provided, one judge being assigned to each of the other 14 judicial districts. The highest salaries are paid to the judges of the courts of first instance for the city of Manila. Any judge of the court of first instance may be transferred by order of the supreme court for the purpose of holding a term or art of a term in any other judicial district. Courts of first instance are given original jurisdiction

1. In all cases in which the subject of litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation.